Yeah. 100% agree with the above. Whether there's anything sinister going on or not, it's still inappropriate for public figures with power and influence (which Ruby does have via her online presence) to befriend their fans, let alone those who are underage. It's the same reason why it's inappropriate for teachers to be friends with their students, or therapists to be friends with their patients regardless of age.It's such an ethically icky position to be in to be so familiar with audience members due to the parasocial relationship. It was weird when rock bands in the 70s did stuff with their groupies, and it's weird now.
[...]
I would say even if there's no sexual impropriety, it's still overfamiliar and breaching the ethics of being an influencer with a young audience.
It's also worth mentioning that I've seen plenty of minor scandals involving people who befriended younger fans/online followers in a fully non-sexual way, but still caused them psychological harm by exposing them to things they shouldn't have (drink, drugs, self-harm), or treating them like therapists and demanding advice/emotional support, or just generally behaving in a way these poor kids weren't equipped to handle. Sexual abuse isn't the only thing that can go wrong in these kinds of situations.
While it's impossible to know for sure, Ruby's behaviour does appear innocent and rooted in her desire to re-live her own childhood and feel like 'one of the kids' again, rather than anything sexual. That's ducked up in of itself and she needs serious therapy, but that's beside the point. There are still lines you don't cross, and if Ruby's not mature enough to realise that then I honestly don't think she should be on the internet.